Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Contra factum: The Hindu reformer Ambedkar…

Reading the headline “Ambedkar was a true Hindu reformist: Arlekar” in the Herald a couple of days ago,
literally pushed me off the chair I was having my breakfast in. Published on 30
April, the article was a report of the Speaker of the Assembly Mr. Rajendra
Arlekar speaking at an event held by the Dalit Seva Sanghatana in Margao, to
felicitate the former Fatorda MLA Mr. Damu Naik with the Dalit Sakha Puraskar.

It was a strange way to frame
Babasaheb Ambedkar, given that it was the same man who, at a Dalit conference
in Yeola (Nasik district), in 1935 declaimed that “I was born a Hindu. I
couldn’t help it, but I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu.” And
this was not the first time that Dr. Ambedkar made explicit his intentions to
not allow the Dalits to be identified with Hindu society. Indeed, in the course
of the Round Table Conferences that were held between 1930 -32, as part of the
British attempts to lay the ground for democratic transition in colonial India,
Dr. Ambedkar presented a demand for separate electorate for what were then
known as the ‘untouchables’. This demand, which came along with a similar
demand by the Muslim leadership for the Muslims in the subcontinent, was
however vehemently protested by Gandhi. While Mr. Jinnah’s, and Mr. Ambedkar’s
fears were those of Hindu upper-caste majoritarianism that could threaten the
interests of the groups they were representing, Mohandas K. (also known as Mahatma) Gandhi’s reasons for
his opposition were contrary. Gandhi was afraid that recognizing the right of
the Dalits to a separate electorate would effectively disintegrate what he
thought of as Hindu society. To obviate this possibility, Gandhi resorted to a
fast-unto-death at the Yervada Jail where he was being held at the time. The
inordinate amount of pressure that this created, resulted in Dr. Ambedkar being
forced to concede his demand, and settle for assurances from Gandhi and the
upper-caste nationalist leaders that gained the form of the Poona Pact in 1932.

Dr. Amberkar finally succeeded in
effecting the Dalit split from Hindu society by converting, along with half a
million of his supporters, to Buddhism in October 14, 1956 at Nagpur. Dr.
Ambedkar died some three months later in December that year and remained true
to his words in 1935, he did not die a Hindu. And yet, as Mr. Arlekar’s words
demonstrate, the attempt by Hindu leaders to appropriate Dr. Ambedkar and the
Dalits to their cause continues unabated. One of the common strategies through
which this appropriation is effected is by casting Buddhism as a reform branch
of Hinduism. Another strategy is to point out how rather than converting to
Islam or Christianity, both religions that have traditionally been routes for
lower-caste and untouchable converts seeking liberation from caste strictures,
Dr. Ambedkar chose Buddhism instead. The logic attributed to Dr. Ambedkar is
that he did not want to lead his folllowers into the arms of foreign religions,
but rather into a tradition that had grown in the soil of India, an ‘Indian’
religion. Indeed, this rhetorical strategy is similar to the one employed by
Mr. Arlekar when he reportedly said “that representatives of other religions
had approached Dr. Ambedkar to bring the Dalits into their fold, but he had
declined.”

There are a number of possible
reasons for Dr. Ambedkar’s choice of Buddhism and rejection of the
Christian-Islamic option. The first that we ought to consider is that
conversion to Christianity or Islam, while it may have minimized, through its
ideological acknowledgments of the equalty of persons, the whip of caste
oppression has not ended caste-based prejudice against the Dalits. The second
is that Buddhism was preferred for the rationalism that accompanied the version
privileged by Dr. Ambedkar. This was not a version that stressed ritual, but
like Protestant Christianity, underlined the central location of the
individual. To stress the individual and his/her role in contemplation as a
route toward salvation, Dr. Ambedkar was making a historical choice for those
who have traditionally not been recognized as individuals. It is possible that
the foreign origins of Christianity and Islam may have also prevailed on Dr.
Ambedkar, and this would not be surprising given the nature of scholarship and
thought at the time. However, to suggest that he chose Buddhism because he was
a Hindu reformer is to not only pervert but to insult his memory and the
radical choice he made. There is a strong trend of scholarship that has
suggested that Buddhism is merely reform Hinduism. This impression however is
largely the product of orientalist historians who operated under the
fundamental assumption that India was primarily Hindu. Buddhism that emerged as a response to
Brahmanical and Vedic religious practices, did take on brahmanical rituals in
the course of its twining with Empire, but nevertheless maintained a tense and
often hostile relationship with Hinduism. Indeed, it has been argued by some
historians that the destruction of the ancient university of Nalanda was not
entirely the work of the Turko-Afghan forces under Bhaktiyar Khilji. Another
lesser known and somewhat controversial argument suggests that once the Turko-Afghans had left, it was the
local brahmanical groups, natural enemies of the Buddhist establishment, that
got together, and set upon the struggling remains of the university ending the
saga of the ancient university.

Mr. Arlekar is not out of place
though in suggesting that Dr. Ambedkar was a Hindu reformer. It is in keeping
with the Hindu right-wing’s view of the world that all religions that
originated within India are in fact parts of Hinduism. Furthermore, as the
Hindu right wing, seeks to consolidate its power within the Indian nation-state,
it has attempted to woo the Dalits into its fold. To achieve this aim, it has
sought to appropriate to its agenda the venerable figure of Dr. Ambedkar, no
matter that his agenda was substantially different from that of the Hindu
right-wing.

This attempt to appropriate the
figure of Dr. Ambedkar may have nevertheless had some tempering effects upon
the Hindu right-wing. An example of the strange situation that the saffron
groups have found themselves in as a result of an attempt at this appropriation
has been commented upon in a recent editorial in the Economic and Political Weekly. Reflecting on the inarticulate response by the Hindu right-wing to the
contentious “beef festival” held at the Osmania University by some dalit and
left student groups in Osmania University of Hyderabad, the editorial commented
that this was perhaps explained by the fact of the location of the groups that
have backed this food festival. While the cow-related politics of Hindutva has
been largely aimed at striking at Muslims and Christians in the country, these
groups are clueless as to how to respond when nominal Hindus such as the Dalits
claim the beef is a part of their traditional diet and forms part of their
right to nutrition. An aggressive response such as the Hindu right normally
uses would be to hit out at the Dalit icon Dr. Ambedkar, which in this case is
not quite the best option, given the attempts at wooing the dalits.

Calling upon Dr. Ambedkar as a
Hindu reformer it thus appears, is not quite historically correct, nor would it
be seen as a serious claim from within the frame of Ambedkarite politics. And
yet, when doing so, the Hindu right wing may perhaps be inviting a change in
its operation that it might not entirely be comfortable with. C’est la vie…?

(A version of this post first appeared in the Gomantak Times dtd 9 May 2012)

1 comment:

Respected Sir,Please Mention educational Qualification of Dr.Ambedkar in front of his name on your website (One line Under his anme)Dr.AMBEDKAR (1891-1956)B.A., M.A., M.Sc., D.Sc., Ph.D., L.L.D., D.Litt., Barrister-at-Law

B.A.(Bombay University) Bachelor of Arts,MA.(Columbia university) Master Of Arts,M.Sc.( London School of Economics) Master Of Science, Ph.D. (Columbia University) Doctor of philosophy ,D.Sc.( London School of Economics) Doctor of Science ,L.L.D.(Columbia University) Doctor of Laws ,D.Litt.( Osmania University) Doctor of Literature,Barrister-at-Law (Gray's Inn, London) law qualification for a lawyer to practice law in royal court of England.

About Me

Itinerant mendicant captures two aspects of my life perfectly. My educational formation has seen me traverse various terrains, geographical as well as academic. After a Bachelor's in law from the National Law School of India, I worked for a while in the environmental and developmental sector. After a Master's in the Sociology of Law, I obtained a Doctorate in Anthropology in Lisbon for my study of the citizenship experience of Goan Catholics. I am currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for Research in Anthropology at the University Institute of Lisbon, but continue to shuttle between Lisbon and Goa.
I see myself as a mendicant not only because so many of my voyages have been funded by scholarships and grants but because I will accept almost any offer for sensorial and intellectual stimulation, and thank the donor for it.
This blog operates as an archive of my writings in the popular press.